Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• boot_simulatorC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Boot a simulator' implies a state-changing action (starting a simulator), but it doesn't describe what happens during boot (e.g., loading an OS, requiring specific permissions, potential timeouts, or effects on other simulators). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise with 'Boot a simulator', a single phrase that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (a state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output expectations, error handling, and integration with sibling tools. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description doesn't provide enough context for effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'deviceId' parameter documented as 'Device UDID or name of the simulator to boot'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Boot a simulator' clearly states the action (boot) and target (simulator), but it's vague about what 'boot' entails (e.g., starting a virtual device) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'shutdown_simulator' or 'list_simulators'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity and sibling distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a simulator to be available), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'shutdown_simulator' for stopping or 'list_simulators' for selecting a device. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• build_xcodeC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Build') but lacks details on execution behavior, such as whether it runs locally or remotely, timeouts, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity and no structured safety hints.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of building Xcode projects (which can involve compilation, dependencies, and errors) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error cases, or what to expect upon completion, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Build') and resource ('Xcode project or workspace'), providing specific intent. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'install_app' or 'list_simulators', which are related but distinct operations in the Xcode ecosystem.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools exist (e.g., 'install_app', 'list_simulators'), the description doesn't mention them or explain scenarios where building is appropriate versus other actions, leaving usage context unclear.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• install_appC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'install' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permissions needed, whether installation is reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid app path), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical context such as what 'install' entails (e.g., overwriting existing apps?), expected return values, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., requiring a booted simulator). The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these behavioral gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples for appPath or simulatorId). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('install') and target resource ('app on the simulator'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'boot_simulator' or 'list_simulators', but the verb 'install' is distinct enough for basic differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the simulator needs to be booted first), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'boot_simulator' or 'list_simulators'.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• list_simulatorsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., a list of simulator objects with properties), whether it's a read-only operation, or any constraints like rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and potential behavioral complexity. It doesn't explain the output format, error conditions, or how filtering works beyond what's in the schema. For a listing tool in a developer context, more context on return values or usage patterns would be helpful.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying filtering (via 'available'), which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide extra semantic value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('available iOS simulators'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'boot_simulator' or 'shutdown_simulator' beyond the listing action, and the mention of 'iOS' in the description is slightly misleading since the schema shows support for multiple Apple platforms.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for listing simulators (vs. booting or shutting them down with sibling tools), nor does it explain prerequisites or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• shutdown_simulatorC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Shutdown' implies a destructive action, but the description doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens to running processes, or error conditions. It lacks essential context for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential information without any wasted text. Every word earns its place in communicating the core function.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'shutdown' entails behaviorally, what the response looks like, or error handling. Given the complexity of a mutation operation, more context is needed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'deviceId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score when schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Shutdown a simulator' clearly states the action (shutdown) and target resource (simulator), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'boot_simulator' or 'list_simulators' beyond the obvious action difference, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'boot_simulator' or prerequisites for shutdown. It merely states what the tool does without context about appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.